Gamerberg vs. 3000 E. 111th St LLC
Facts: A commercial property owner sought a permit to expand the size of their warehouse. Zoning required additional parking spaces which the adjacent property owner agreed to provide under a parking agreement to license the use of their property. The license agreement was not recorded. The permit was approved and construction completed. Later, both properties were acquired by buyers. Neither were informed of the parking license and the spaces were not marked or used for the licensed parking. Later, the buyer of the commercial property applied for a permit to further expand the warehouse and was informed of the parking agreement. On demand to designate the licensed parking spaces, the buyer of the adjacent property refused to allow the parking.
Claim: The owner of the commercial property seeks to maintain their use of the parking spaces on the burdened property, claiming they held an irrevocable license since substantial expenditures were made expanding their warehouse in reliance on their licensing agreement for parking.
Counterclaim: The buyer of the adjacent property claims the license to use is void since the agreement was not recorded and they did not know of its existence before they acquired title.
Holding: A California court of appeals held the license agreement is void and unenforceable by the commercial property owner since the buyer of the adjacent property took title without prior knowledge of the license. [Gamerberg v. 3000 E. 11th St., LLC (January 21st, 2020) __ CA6th__]
